Over 80 percent of Americans support mandatory labels on foods containing DNA

[SillyAmerican]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     This is probably the most cogent reason to not label GMOs. There is a lot of kneejerk opposition and general fear over what they are and what they do. We need to sort this all out and arrive at a real consensus on GMOs before we give the information to a segment of the population that is simply not equipped to handle it in a well-informed fashion.

You think it would be a good idea to not label GMO foods? I completely disagree, for the following simple reason. If you look at some of the old commercials put out by the cigarette companies, you'll see all kinds of claims being made. (Check out the one showing the brand smoked by most doctors, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKLpO9qhOE). So what has changed? Well, we began seeing claims that smoking tobacco causes cancer, so we decided to do the science: the studies were run by looking at people that smoke vs. those that don't, results began to be compiled, and attitudes began to change. Ok, so fast forward to GMOs. Certain people are making one set of claims, others are making opposite claims. Which group is correct?  Well, to do the science like we did with cigarettes, you need to run studies on two groups of people, those that consume GMOs and those that don't. Then you look to see if correlations exist between diseases and consumption of GMO foods. But how can you do this when people don't know whether or not they've consumed foods with GMOs in them? Use of GMOs in our food system is so wide spread and so downplayed that it's going to be near impossible to get any clear answers on the subject, and I suspect that's by design.

[SillyAmerican]

3. You don't read my links either do you? One of the links cited an Italian study that specifically said that GMO do not present an issue to the environment.

Yes, but perhaps the main issue is not to the environment. There have been problems with GMO and non-GMO corn being grown in adjacent areas, with the GMO pollinating the non-GMO. When that happens, the results typically are (1) the non-GMO farmer can no longer bring to market the desired non-GMO product, and (2) the folks supporting GMO use file suit against the (often times smaller) non-GMO grower on the basis of the fact that they are now producing corn containing patented genetic modifications. It's a real mess, especially with regard to wind pollinated crops such as corn.

[SillyAmerican]

Then i discovered that seperating and monitoring GMO from non-GMO food sources is a significant expense. i'm all for mandating labeling on products with scientifically proven detrimental effects that warrant such expense , but as the health "risks" of GMO food is about as scientifically tenuous as vaccinations causing autism , it doesn't begin justifying the not insignificant costs of labeling .

You make a very good point. And mind you, I'm not one of those who is trying to vilify GMO foods or the companies responsible for their production. But I would like to see more independent science done on the matter, remembering all the reassurances put out by Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds in the '60s regarding the smoking of cigarettes. (It's never a bright idea to rely on those whose profits are derived from a product or process to report on the safety / efficacy of that product / process).

One solution might be to flip the whole labeling requirement on its head: figure out what specifically would be needed for something to be considered "non-GMO", and allow an appropriate label on only those products that meet the criteria. So the costs associated with the production, monitoring, and labeling of such food items ends up being covered by those working to produce these food items for that portion of the population that want them, for whatever reason (be it extreme paranoia, sensitivity to food allergies, or whatever). This would seem to be a reasonable approach that serves all of the various parties involved, as well as helping to bolster Adam Smith's informed consumer, yes?

[SillyAmerican]

I think in medicine you expect evidence or at least a plausible hypothesis.  There is no evidence that GMOs are the least bit unhealthy.  There's no plausible hypothesis as to how they would be unhealthy.  Thus, there's no reason to label them.

Yes, just a point of clarification: modification of the genetics of a plant do not pose a health issue in and of themselves. The problem is that many of the genetic modifications being done target a plant's response to the use of certain chemicals, either for fertilization or for weed/pest control. It is the widespread use of these chemicals that people object to. People tend to want to over simplify things, getting all agitated about GMO products, when in fact, as you correctly point out, the genetic modifications themselves have no direct involvement in the health issues associated with produce coming from GMO plants. It's the use of chemicals that pose the real threat. I know that if I'm eating a fruit or vegetable off a plant that has not been modified to respond appropriately to the use of these chemicals, that the chances of these fruits or veggies containing residual amounts of these chemicals is quite a bit lower. That's the rational for wanting to draw the distinction between GMO and non-GMO.

[SillyAmerican]

Do you have some sort of citation that indicates that the synthetic pesticides that GMOs allow for (such as glyphosate) are more dangerous on average?  This contradicts what I've read.  Even if it were true, why is mandatory labeling of something that indirectly correlates (not even that strongly) with the presence of those chemicals a reasonable solution, especially when people will mistakenly infer they should be concerned about GMOs themselves?  These seems like a strained rationalization for supporting GMO labeling.

Also, any responses to the points made in my last post?

Here's one recent article that raises the question: http://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181

I'd like to see more science done on the subject; I believe there's enough evidence to justify looking further into the issue. In the meantime, I'd be willing to cover some additional cost associated with having labels on non-GMO products, as I mentioned in a previous post.